Seashore Paspalum turfgrass named ‘Aloha’

ABSTRACT

A newly discovered, and asexually propagated genotype of Seashore  Paspalum  turfgrass with a distinct set of agronomic, horticultural, morphological, and insect resistant traits.

Genus and species name: This invention relates to a new and distinctgenotype of Seashore Paspalum of the genus and species Paspalumvaginatum O. Swartz. It is described herein and designated as ‘Aloha’.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

This invention was discovered and identified at the University ofHawaii's Lalamilo Research Farm in Kamuela. This research site islocated on the north side of the island of Hawaii in the Kohala Districtat an elevation of 3,000 feet, which receives less than 20″ of annualrainfall. It was selected in January 1999 as a seedling from the openpollination of a naturalized/local land race and coded as Breeding LineNo. H99-47. It was initially selected as a 1.0 inch seedling,transferred to a small pot, and subsequently propagated asexually. It isone of a number of genotypes that were selected and/or collected in theregion and initially screened for horticultural appearance. As H99-47was advanced through the selection process, it was evaluated andcompared to the standard commercial varieties for a number of traitspresented herein, and ultimately received the proposed name ‘Aloha’.Over a five year research and testing period in Florida ‘Aloha’ waspropagated numerous times and has remained uniform and geneticallyconsistent. The denomination of this new invention in ‘Aloha’.

The distinctness of ‘Aloha’ from ‘Sea Isle 1’, ‘Sea Dwarf’ (SDX-1), andother Seashore Paspalum varieties is based on four sets of traitsincluding; 1) floral morphology; 2) leaf and stolon morphology' 3) rateof growth and cover; and 4) insect resistance.

For the purpose of registration under the “International Convention forthe Protection of New Varieties of Plants” (generally known by itsFrench acronym UPOV Convention) and noting Sections 1612 of the Manualof Patent Examination Procedures this new variety of Seashore Paspalumof the present invention is named ‘Aloha’.

BRIEF DESCRIPITION OF DRAWINGS

FIG. 1: A comparative “Aerial View” of ‘Aloha’, ‘Sea Isle 1’, and ‘SeaDwarf’ (SDX-1) illustrating similarities in leaf morphology of 4year-old plants. These pots were grown side-by-side, uncut and underidentical cultural practices.

FIG. 2: A comparative photograph of ‘Aloha’ and ‘Sea Dwarf’ SDX-1)illustrating the differences in stolon morphology of 4 year-old plants.These pots were grown side-by-side, uncut and under identical culturalpractices.

FIG. 3: A Breeders Block of 2 year-old ‘Aloha’ growing in Avon Park,Fla.

FIG. 4: A close-up photograph of a freshly cut Breeders Block of 2year-old ‘Aloha’.

FIG. 5: A side profile photograph of 2 year-old ‘Aloha’ after a recentcutting.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIETY

This new variety of Seashore Paspalum turfgrass is a perennial plantpropagated asexually from either rhizomes, stolons, sprigs, or plugs. Itis best adapted to tropical, subtropical, and sub temperate climateswith moderate rainfall. ‘Aloha’ was tested under the code number H99-47and is described under field conditions at three research sites inFlorida, including Arcadia, Avon Park, and Belle Glade.

The floral morphology of ‘Aloha’ was compared to ‘Sea Isle 1’ and ‘SeaDwarf’ across fourteen traits. Four of these traits described thepeduncle morphology, and five were used to describe the racemes. BecausePaspalum vaginatum has a bifurcated inflorescence, data were collectedon both the long and short raceme (Table 1). Overall, ‘Aloha’ differedsignificantly from the standard varieties for eight of thefourteen-inflorescence traits. In general, ‘Aloha’ had a more robustfloral morphology than either ‘Sea Dwarf’ or ‘Sea Isle 1’. The totallength of the inflorescence and the width of the peduncle weresignificantly longer for ‘Aloha’, while the exposed or exerted portionof the peduncle was shorter. As expected, the sheath of the flag leaf,which covers the peduncle was correspondingly longer on ‘Aloha’ (Table2). Peduncle width on all three varieties varied less then 1.0 mm.

Raceme morphology varied both within and among the varieties. Withineach variety, the long-racemes were 5.0% to 10.0% longer than theshort-racemes, and the standard errors (s.e.) around the variety meansindicated these differences were statistically significant for ‘Aloha’and ‘Sea Isle 1’. The differences between the long-and short-racemes on‘Sea Dwarf’ were not significant. Among the varieties, ‘Aloha’ producedlonger long-racemes and longer short-racemes than either of the standardvarieties, and theses differences were statistically significant (Table1). This pattern was repeated for floret number. Within varieties, therewere more florets produced on the long-racemes as compared to theshort-racemes, but only ‘Sea Isle 1’ exhibited a significant difference.Among the varieties, ‘Aloha’ produced more florets on both the long- andshort-racemes than either of the standards (Table 1). Floret densityacross all varieties was the tightest on ‘Sea Dwarf’ and the leastcompact on ‘Aloha’. Densities ranged from an average of one floret per1.71 mm to 1.85 mm. For raceme width, glume length and glume width thepattern of size was either reversed or inconsistent. ‘Sea Dwarf’ had thewidest racemes, and ‘Aloha’ had an intermediate raceme width (Table 1).‘Sea Dwarf’ also had longer glumes than ‘Aloha’ on the short-racemes,but shorter glumes on the long-racemes (Table 1).

The morphology of the flag leaf is described by three traits, whichinclude the flag leaf length and width, along with the sheath length.‘Aloha’ had a more robust morphology then either ‘Sea Isle 1’ or ‘SeaDwarf’ (Table 2). On average, the flag leaves of ‘Aloha’ weresignificantly longer and wider than either standard. ‘Aloha’ producedflag leaves that were 50% longer than ‘Sea Dwarf’ and nearly twice aslong as the flag leaves produced by ‘Sea Isle 1’ (Table 2). In addition,the flag leaf sheaths covered more of peduncle on ‘Aloha’, and weresignificantly longer than the standards (Table 2).

The stolon and leaf morphology of the vegetative tissue was measured onfully expanded leaves and internodes. Unlike the previously measuredtraits, there were no significant differences between the threevarieties for average leaf length or width. This is also illustrated inFIG. 1. From an uncut field plot, ‘Aloha’ produced leaves that were ±2.0mm longer than ‘Sea Dwarf’ and ±4.5 mm longer than ‘Sea Isle 1’ ‘Aloha’also produced leaves that were narrower (Table 3). Significantstatistical differences did exist for the internode measurements.‘Aloha’ and ‘Sea Dwarf’ had, on average, shorter internodes than ‘SeaIsle 1’ (Table 2). The internode width of ‘Aloha’ was significantlyshorter than ‘Sea Isle 1’, but no significant difference was detectedbetween ‘Aloha’ and Sea Dwarf for this trait (Table 3).

The green color and anthocyanin pigment in ‘Aloha’, ‘Sea Dwarf’ and ‘SeaIsle 1’ varied when fresh samples of vegetative tissue were compared tocolor panels in the Munsell Color Chart. The adaxial leaf surface of allthree varieties ranged in the hue from 5GY to 7.5GY, but ‘Aloha’[5GY-7.5GY (5-4/4)] had a darker color than either ‘Sea Dwarf’ [5GY(6-5/4) to 7.5GY (5-4/4)] or ‘Sea Isle 1’ [5GY-7.5GY (6-5/4)]. The greeninternode tissue of ‘Aloha’ ranged in color from [5GY (6-5/4) to 7.5GY(6-5/4)] and had a darker green color than either ‘Sea Dwarf’, [5GY(6-5/4) to 7.5GY (6-5/4)], or ‘Sea Isle 1’ [5GY (6-5/4) to 7.5GY(6-5/4)]. Anthocyanin colors in the node and internode tissues wereessentially the same. Color patterns in the stigmatic tissue and racemesof each variety were also similar. The color of the exposed peduncle on‘Sea Dwarf’ had more yellow [2.5GY (6-5/6)] than either ‘Aloha’ or ‘SeaIsle 1’, which had an identical color range of [5GY (6-5/6) to 7.5GY(6-5/6)].

A set of four varieties were compared for the rate of growth as measuredby the increases in plot coverage, stolon count and stolon length.Stolon length was measured in centimeters. All four varieties in the“grow-in” experiments exhibited statistically significant differencesfrom the first month of data collection. ‘Aloha’ covered the plotssignificantly faster than ‘Sea Dwarf’, ‘Sea Green’ or ‘Sea Isle 1’.‘Aloha’ attained 50% plot coverage in 3.75 months, while ‘Sea Dwarf’took over eight months to attain 50% plot coverage. ‘Sea Isle 1’ and‘Sea Green’ attained 50% plot coverage by the middle of the fifth month(Table 4). ‘Aloha’ and ‘Sea Isle 1’ produced the most stolons in thefourth month, but in subsequence months stolon numbers were difficult todiscern as plot coverage increased. Across all months, ‘Aloha’ producedmore stolons than any of the standard varieties (Table 4). Themeasurements of stolon length indicated that only ‘Sea Dwarf’ producedconsistently shorter stolons than either ‘Aloha’, ‘Sea Green’ or ‘SeaIsle 1’.

‘Aloha’ was compared to an array of varieties for resistance to thegreenbug aphid (Schizaphes graminum (Rondani) (Homoptera: Aphidae) andthe tropical sod webworm (Herpetogramma phaeoteralis Guenee(Hepidoptera: Pyralidae). Both insects are known to attack and damageturfgrass, although the greenbug aphid is a relatively new problem onSeashore Paspalum. Five varieties of Seashore Paspalum were infestedwith two nymph colonies of the greenbug aphid, which were monitored fortheir rate of development, longevity and fecundity (Table 5). Aphidsgrown on ‘Aloha’ and ‘Sea Isle 1’ took the longest time to reach sexualmaturity, and this development rate was significantly different from‘Sea Dwarf’ and ‘Sea Way’. The life expectancy or longevity of theaphids was significantly shorter on ‘Aloha’ than any of the othervarieties. The aphids only lived for an average of 16.3 days on ‘Aloha’,while the life expectancy ranged from 24.9 to 29.4 days on the othervarieties (Table 5). Additionally, the reproductive rate of the aphidwas significantly reduced on ‘Aloha’ in comparison to the othervarieties. Sexually mature aphids only produced an average of 14.6offspring on ‘Aloha’, but an average of 29.1 to 38.4 offspring wereproduced on the four other varieties (Table 5). These results clearlyindicate that ‘Aloha’ has a higher level of host plant resistance basedon antibiosis in comparison to the other varieties.

In a second set of experiments, ‘Aloha’ was compared to the samestandard varieties and ‘Sea Wolf’, a pasture-type Seashore Paspalum, forthe growth of the tropical sod webworm. No statistically significantdifferences existed between the turf varieties of Seashore Paspalum,although ‘Aloha’ induced the lowest insect weight gain among this groupof varieties. ‘Sea Wolf’ was the only variety to significantly slow therate of webworm weight gain among all varieties (Table 6).

TABLE 1 Comparison of floral traits among ‘Aloha’, ‘Sea Isle 1’, and‘Sea Dwarf’ (SDX-1). ‘Aloha’ ‘Sea Isle’ ‘Sea Dwarf’ Trait Mean ± Mean ±Mean ± Overall Shoot ^((Z)) 94.70 1.66 84.05 1.56 82.01 1.87 Peduncle^((Y)) 61.03 1.34 54.56 1.28 52.93 1.54 Peduncle Width ^((X)) 0.98 0.020.90 0.02 0.98 0.04 Exposed ^((W)) 12.24 0.82 12.87 1.00 13.77 0.79 LongRaceme Raceme ^((V)) 34.30 0.50 29.20 0.46 28.60 0.86 Raceme Width^((U)) 1.54 0.03 1.42 0.02 1.69 0.03 Floret ^((T)) 18.25 0.48 16.50 0.3616.70 0.54 Glume Length ^((S)) 3.10 0.02 3.02 0.02 2.92 0.05 Glume Width^((R)) 1.51 0.03 1.48 0.01 1.38 0.03 Short Raceme Raceme ^((V)) 31.750.51 26.38 0.57 26.38 0.77 Raceme Width ^((U)) 1.70 0.05 1.59 0.05 1.770.05 Floret ^((T)) 17.40 0.50 14.50 0.44 14.95 0.65 Glume Length ^((S))2.75 0.06 2.76 0.04 2.86 0.04 Glume Width ^((R)) 1.17 0.02 1.18 0.031.13 0.03 ^((Z)) Overall Shoot Length (mm) is measured from the firstnode on the peduncle subtending the inflorescence to the top of thelongest raceme. ^((Y)) Peduncle Length (mm) is measured from first nodesubtending the inflorescences to the point where the bifurcation isinitiated. ^((X)) Peduncle Width (mm) is measured at the widest part ofthe peduncle. ^((W)) Exposed Peduncle Length (mm) is the average lengthof the peduncle not covered by the flag leaf sheath. ^((V)) RacemeLength (mm) is measured from the apex of each seed head to the base ofthe raceme. ^((U)) Raceme Width (mm) is measured at the broadest part ofeach seed head. ^((T)) Floret Number is the average count of seedproducing florets on the raceme. ^((S)) Glume Length (mm) is a measureof the average glume length on the seed located at the mid-point alongthe floret. ^((R)) Glume Width (mm) is measured at the widest part ofthe glume.

TABLE 2 Comparison of Flag Leaf traits among ‘Aloha’, ‘Sea Isle 1’, and‘Sea Dwarf’ (SDX-1) ‘Aloha’ ‘Sea Isle’ ‘Sea Dwarf’ Trait (mm) Mean ±Mean ± Mean ± Flag Leaf Length 7.64 0.88 3.85 0.64 4.53 0.79 Flag LeafWidth ^((Z)) 1.01 0.09 0.61 0.09 0.66 0.11 Sheath Length ^((Y)) 48.820.87 41.42 0.88 39.89 0.82 ^((Z)) Flag Leaf Width is measured at thewidest part of the leaf. ^((Y)) Sheath Length is measured from the baseof the flag leaf to the first node subtending the inflorescence.

TABLE 3 Comparison of Leaf morphology among ‘Aloha’, ‘Sea Isle 1’, and‘Sea Dwarf’ (SDX-1) ‘Aloha’ ‘Sea Isle’ ‘Sea Dwarf’ Trait (mm) Mean ±Mean ± Mean ± Leaf Length 58.90 1.38 54.36 1.80 57.95 2.18 Leaf Width^((Z)) 2.94 0.07 3.05 0.09 3.03 0.10 Internode Length 24.07 0.76 27.210.73 22.28 0.85 Internode Width ^((Y)) 1.76 0.04 1.90 0.03 1.83 0.03^((Z)) Flag Leaf Width is measured at the widest part of the leaf.^((Y)) Internode Width is measured at the widest part of the internode

TABLE 4 A comparison of ‘Aloha’, ‘Sea Dwarf’, ‘Sea Green’, and ‘Sea Isle1’ for rate of plot cover, stolon count and stolon length. Trait Month 1Month 2 Month 3 Month 4 Variety Mean ± s.e. Mean ± s.e. Mean ± s.e. Mean± s.e. % Cover ^((Z)) ‘Aloha’ 8.75 0.25 25.75 3.20 — — 55.50 7.71 ‘SeaDwarf’ 9.00 0.41 14.74 2.06 — — 31.25 1.75 ‘Sea Green’ 7.00 2.27 23.006.50 — — 43.25 1.94 ‘Sea Isle 9.50 1.50 29.25 4.11 — — 47.50 2.50 StolonCount ^((Y)) ‘Aloha’ 18.00 1.91 40.30 1.19 — — 41.25 4.64 ‘Sea Dwarf’16.25 1.44 39.00 1.91 — — 33.75 5.49 ‘Sea Green’ 11.75 1.75 35.00 2.83 —— 36.00 4.04 ‘Sea Isle 17.75 2.66 35.75 3.68 — — 42.25 1.31 StolonLength ^((X)) ‘Aloha’ 8.29 0.48 19.00 0.58 — — 21.50 1.50 ‘Sea Dwarf’4.50 0.50 13.50 0.90 — — 15.25 1.25 ‘Sea Green’ 6.00 1.22 19.00 1.29 — —20.50 2.25 ‘Sea Isle 7.75 1.31 19.50 0.50 — — 20.25 2.72 Trait Month 5Month 6 Month 7 Month 8 Variety Mean ± s.e. Mean ± s.e. Mean ± s.e. Mean± s.e. % Cover ^((Z)) ‘Aloha’ — — 71.25 8.98 — — 68.75 11.06 ‘Sea Dwarf’— — 40.00 6.12 — — 43.75 8.00 ‘Sea Green’ — — 52.50 4.33 — — 57.50 3.23‘Sea Isle — — 56.25 1.25 — — 56.25 4.27 Stolon Count ^((Y)) ‘Aloha’ — —23.00 1.47 — — 23.00 1.47 ‘Sea Dwarf’ — — 17.75 0.63 — — 19.00 0.71 ‘SeaGreen’ — — 22.00 1.91 — — 22.25 1.80 ‘Sea Isle — — 21.75 0.75 — — 22.000.71 Stolon Length ^((X)) ‘Aloha’ — — 27.00 2.12 — — 28.75 2.63 ‘SeaDwarf’ — — 20.50 2.53 — — 23.00 2.65 ‘Sea Green’ — — 28.50 0.50 — —31.50 1.71 ‘Sea Isle — — 26.00 2.45 — — 29.50 2.06 ^((Z)) Percent Coveris measured as the portion of the 1.0 m² plot covered in a particularmonth. ^((Y)) Stolon Number is the count of stolons radiating from asingle 10 cm plug planted at the center of 1.0 m² plot. ^((X)) StolonLength is the average length of stolons counted in a particular month.Stolon length is measured in cm.

TABLE 5 The Rate of Development, Longevity, and Fecundity of the greenbug (Schizaphis graminum) feeding on five different varieties ofSeashore Paspalum. Development ^((Z)) Longevity ^((Y)) Fecundity ^((X))Variety Mean ± Mean ± Mean ± ‘Aloha’ 8.20 0.10 16.30 1.70 14.60 2.70‘Sea Isle’ 8.20 0.20 24.90 2.20 29.10 3.80 ‘Sea Dwarf’ 7.60 0.20 26.102.80 38.30 3.70 ‘Sea Green’ 7.90 0.20 26.60 3.40 34.00 4.10 ‘Sea Way’7.60 0.30 29.40 3.00 38.40 6.00 ^((Z)) The Rate of Development isdefined as the number of days to reproductive maturity. ^((Y)) Longevityis the average life expectancy measured in days. ^((X)) Fecundity is ameasure of the reproductive rate and based on offspring count.

TABLE 6 Weight gain for the tropical sod webworm (Herpetogrammaphaeopterali Guemee) after four days of feeding on six differentvarieties of Seashore Paspalum. Weight ^((Z)) Range Variety Mean ± Mean± ‘Aloha’ 50.90 4.76 24.10 68.70 ‘Sea Isle 1’ 56.27 2.76 43.20 73.80‘Sea Dwarf’ 51.14 3.86 29.50 70.60 ‘Sea Green’ 58.38 5.33 24.40 78.80‘Sea Way’ 51.61 3.81 32.70 70.00 ‘Sea Wolf’ 30.43 4.47 12.50 55.10^((Z)) Weight gain is measured in mg.

1. A new and distinct genotype of Seashore Paspalum turfgrass plantsubstantially described and illustrated herein.